Tuesday, May 12, 2009

Unions and the federal government

So, 7.6% of the US population are members of a union. If this is the case, why do unions have so much power? Why do politicians focus so much energy on courting the unions favor for their campaigns?

The government has recently gone to California and told them they would receive no stimulus money unless they rescind the wage cuts imposed on (and agreed upon by) the health care workers in that state. A wage cut that was able to free up $74 million in cash for the state. The government says this violates a clause in the stimulus which means they will not receive the money. So less than 10% of the population is so powerful that it is preventing all the economy "saving" money from being distributed. These wage cuts, combined with the stimulus, take a large step in righting a very large budgeting problem. Now, I understand the idea that these states have to qualify for the money. But why are we so set on saving the wages of this one group? The union has stood up and voiced their concern - "If they're getting money then we should too." For a set of people, the socialist Democrats, that are so concerned about the welfare of the group, they really don't seem to see the fact that the smaller, well-paid group is receiving a benefit that could be used to help others. And all of this is over $2 an hour.

So surely this is the only example of kowtowing to the unions. There couldn't be other obvious case, right? Well, unfortunately, there is another example right there in the Presidents back yard. The President and his administration have stopped the D.C. voucher system that allowed children to choose their school. The NEA has stated that their are flaws in system. The system promotes public schools over private; the private schools do not have higher math and reading scores after two years; some of these facilities have teachers that don't even have bachelor degrees. Well, I see a few flaws in this reasoning. If it promotes the private schools, why are their more public schools than private? Why are their more four more schools with greater than 500 enrolled students? And if the curriculum is no better, why wouldn't they use their superiority (or average-ness, as it apparently is) as a recruiting tool? And if again, if the facility is using inferior teachers - as they believe the bachelor's degree conveys superiority - why wouldn't they use that as recruiting tools? The problem lies in the union. The teachers union doesn't want competition. Competition would mean that teachers are judged on what they produce, not on the amount of time they have been there. No other job receives raises that have nothing to do with performance. The bigger question is why are we reducing the opportunities for these students to attend the school they believe could help them. And why are we reducing the chances for students to attend schools that have higher than 70% graduation rates?

These things are examples of the a minority (the union), which number less than 10% of our population, have such control over the lives of so many. Unions, at one point, were an amazing thing that helped many people in this country. But, at this point, they are self-serving organizations that do little to benefit their patronage. The only group that benefits from the unions are politicians. I bet any black union member would have a hard time listing the views that the union has supported to help them.

I believe this is the perfect example of our large government. We have added the unions as a militant arm of the Democrat party. We are now supporting them as though they are government employees. And we do so much to ensure that they are allowed to prosper that they should over-run our country. An employer can do nothing to prevent the unionization of his employees - short of closing their business. But they still make up only 7.6% of Americans. So, why aren't they more numerous? Because most Americans realize the horrible down side to their infestation - they control everything. They even do you the honor of turning down jobs for you. And we want to pass card-check? The unions are upset with their lack of saturation of the American work place. This would make it easier for the unions to force unionization.

And we are sure they won't strong arm people? Everything they do will be honorable and above-board?


Saturday, May 9, 2009

On viewing the correspondents' dinner

I am watching the correspondents' dinner and one thing is painfully evident.: this is a very arrogant man who knows only how to campaign. His speech is a series of jokes made at the expense of the people who may run against him in 3 years. Hillary Clinton, Micheal Bloomberg, Sarah Palin, and several others are the focus of his "jokes." They will say these are all jokes but I don't think the man does anything that isn't planned to benefit his popularity.

As I listen to his accomplishments, I still believe we are going in the wrong direction with the GOP. We need to reduce government. All his accomplishments are ideas that require enormous amounts of oversight and lots of government jobs. We need to eliminate these ideas. I really think the party has done a poor job of this since Reagan. But it's hard to blame a system for not pushing for it's own demise. The advancement of the Republican Party, in it's true form, means a severe reduction in the government, period. It would be hard for politicians to advocate their own firing. This is the direction we need to go.

We are creating a group of people that truly believe they are entitled to a life provided by the government. Education, income, healthcare, housing, travel, child-care and food are all provided if you cannot provide for yourself. And does this come as a loan on future wages or through working for these items? No, they are a hand out paid for by those who make more money and are told "they can afford it." And it is distributed by the same people that tell you these things. This creates a need for bigger government. And it continues to create a group of people that know not how to advance themselves. They look at the government as an entity that should be there for them. It's as if the Constitution says "We the group" instead of "We the People." And the instead of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness it's entitlement, victim-hood, and equality of all.

I really wish we could go back to the time when everyone wanted to accomplish things for themselves instead of believing they'd already done enough.

Thursday, May 7, 2009

New Aim...

I hoping to change the focus of this blog. I know that I'm the only one reading it so I figure I won't alienate anyone. If I do, I should probably talk to someone about that...

This blog is now a platform for my beliefs on the direction of the conservative party. I am sure that the number of followers will double or triple overnight. (Wait, 0 multiplied by 2 or 3 is what - algebra was a long time ago). But, even if it doesn't, I will write my views as often as possible.

I, like many others - including the tea party attendees, believe that the conservative party needs an overhaul. Maybe we need a new party. Maybe we need a realignment of the existing party. Either way, I want to start a discussion of how we can do this -- how can we return to where we started. An America that believes that American power is a good thing. An America that believes in the individual's right to be an individual. An America that believes in a right to advance yourself through hard work and perseverance. An America that believes in success and rising above the crowd - not just being average - the same as all those around you.

America is a good country. There are times in the past when we've been a great country and someday we could be great again. We have lost sight of our greatness and now believe we should reduce ourselves to the level of every other country that hates us simply because we have succeeded. Why do they hate us? Why do we care? Why are we trying to make them like us? I believe that everyone that succeeds will have enemies.

Let's liken this to a business. The manager that is everyone's friend is usually respected by no one and will not succeed. He does not make the hard decisions because they would alienate some people. His team has no leadership; he will have a team of smiling idiots that just can't understand why they have nothing - no wins, no championships. But they like him. The team eventually looks at the manager and asks why he couldn't make them succeed. Now look at the manager that doesn't want to be friends with his team. He wants others to respect him because of his hard work and leadership. The manager that leads by example and shows others how he became so successful. His team will win. They will know how to advance and win in life. His team will be able to succeed even beyond what he has shown them.

Some people will say it's not the US's place to lead - to manage. But those same countries put us in that place. They ask us to step in when they are failing. They ask for help when their country is in jeopardy. The seek asylum when their ideas fail and they are persecuted. They ask us to share our medical advances. And if they want don't need our military support, they want our money because our economy - as bad as things are - is still better than theirs. (look at our funding of the UN or the carbon tax idea- we provide the majority of their funding and we are expected to pass on our money because we produce so much). The trend is that if you hate us, you probably want something from us or were denied something by the US government. Those countries that want nothing from us are usually friendly with us and respect the US for its accomplishments.

So when we fail, when we are not the leader on this team of fools, we will be just like all the other countries - striving to be a country like what America was once. We will wonder then how we let this slip. We will be just another country looking to get by.

I hope we are able to see where we are headed before we get there.

One other subject -

We talk of socialism. Many people say the president is not a socialist. He is trying to help people. But we have already done things to move toward socialism - the government running our education system, welfare and social security, the subsidization of the banks and auto industry and many other government run items. And the idea that the rich can afford to support the poor is socialist at the heart - the needs of the many supersede the needs of the few.

Just remember folks, if we all must live at the same level, we cannot live at the highest level. The average is never a high level. The average household income is around $43,000 per year. That is not a small amount, but if we were to make everyone live at that level, how would new businesses, hospitals, and other services be started. Would it only be if the government needed it? I came out of school with a $500 a month loan payment. Then I bought a house - $170000- and pay $1500 a month. Now, I also have a car and pay $400 each month. So, I now have a degree, an average home and a decent car and pay $2400 in loans. So, $28,800 a year in loans - just to be a veterinarian with average stuff. Now at $43000 a year that leaves about $35000 after taxes - I now have $8000 to live on. Why did I work so hard to become a doctor for that amount. All the stress, all the headaches and liability, just to make that amount. Well, I would rather be a tech that does the nursing side with out the headaches. Why would anyone do more than an easy job if there is no reward. And if we say that we will pay those jobs more we are back to capitalism. The fairest way is the way that exists. What is wrong with working hard and getting ahead?

Well, if we don't stop the socialism, you will find me where I truly belong: at home with my son collecting my welfare checks. Someone has to stay home.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Mr. President and his friendly media

So President Obama's press conference last night should stand as an example of how all good rulers. Be sure to limit the media to only positive questions that further the Administrations agenda.


I know this isn't unheard of. But when will he be asked the other questions? When will he be asked the hard questions?

So, why set up that type of press conference? Why continue this campaigning? He seems to believe he is more intelligent than those that elected him. He believes he has been appointed by a higher power (not God, that would be religious and therefore wrong). He is our savior (again not a religious savior, a savior from ourselves and the American way). All this angry talk of how they won the election. He believes he was appointed to save our country from those evil conservatives. Well, yes, he was elected. Well so were all the Republicans in the government.

To this end, he simply dismisses all of us who have differing opinions. He, and his party, act as though we are unintelligent because we have differing opinions; as though our dissension indicates a lack of understanding. I understand your policy. I understand your rationale. I just don't believe history has shown you this will be effective. And the founding fathers didn't support your ideas. Article 1 section 8 (limiting government) is the foundation of our country. It has allowed our country to become the super-power it has become. And that's all we want. Limit your government. We are not stupid for these beliefs. If we are, then America was founded on stupidity.

So the single most important part is the creation of 4 million jobs? And the private sector has to be responsible for those creations? So what are you doing to improve the job market? Are you reducing payroll taxes to allow us to pay more staff more money? NO. Are you decreasing the tax on corporations' profits or the capital gains tax? NO! Instead you are spending money that will have to come from somewhere. So where are those funds going to come from? Me? YES! What, in any of this, is designed to help us in business? Nothing. So don't bother pretending you are helping.
President Obama is going to have the government push us back into life. Only the government can stop the progression of less jobs, less money, less spending, and less jobs? Why not let the businesses fail? We will survive. In nature, we don't help the weak animal survive. It is eaten. It allows the stronger animal to flourish. So would allowing them to fail. There are many businesses that have been allowed to fail, many that seemed crucial to the nation at the time. And the country recovered.
And how are they going to save us? By most estimates, these jobs will take 1 1/2 - 2 years to start. Sure seems like a long time for our nation to be heading toward ruin as the President has stated.
Perhaps this isn't about the economy, though. Maybe this is their way of advancing socialism in our country. Let's bail these businesses and people out. Lets help them. Then we can tell them what they are allowed to do. They did take our money and help so we must have the right to dictate things to them. Sound ridiculous? How about CEO pay? Sure seems like we have the beginnings of socialism.

Monday, February 9, 2009

Trillions of reasons to be scared

I am scared out of my mind.

I am not exaggerating.

My fiance and I are expecting a baby in the next 2 months. And I am excited. I am so pumped about this little life. I pray every day for his health and happiness.

But this plan that's up for vote today has me cringing.

Trillions of dollars to try and help stimulate our economy. Trillions of dollars, created by people charged with spending by a president trying to use scare tactics to pass the bill. No president has ever made a comment such as that - stating that our country will fail if this isn't passed.

And the other highlights: language preventing the use of funds on buildings at colleges and schools where religous activities take place. Why? So the Muslim student union holds a meeting in the student union and you can't use the funds there? Or in the gym if the christian student athletes hold a meeting?

How about 4.1 million for ACORN? An organization that supports free immagration for all as well as increasing the ease with which illegal immagrants can bring their families to the country (http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=16966). An organization that supports the forced paid sick day for American worker (http://www.acorn.org/index.php?id=16998&L=1%2F%2Findex.php%3Fid%3D). I have nine employees. I give them paid sick days. But what if my business starts to fail? What if I have to eliminate those days to keep employing those people? This mimics the tax increases that have been discussed. If you force me to offer health care, paid sick leave and increase the payroll taxes, I will not be able to keep all my employees. And finally, their stance on foreclosure. Now I understand that banks and credit cards may have done things that hit below the belt. But foreclosure is not the banks fault. First, the government should not have reduced the standards for mortgages - this allowed a lot of undeserving people to "qualify" for loans they could not afford. Second, the responsibility of making the payment and knowing what you can afford falls solely on the borrower. I feel for all that have lost their homes but I do not think it should be everyone elses responsibility to fix this.

Why do they even think they can fix this? Why not let the economy straighten itself out? Yes, we'll fall on some hard times. But FDR's attempts to fix things led to a 8 or 9 year depression.

I am so scared. My country could care less what I want. It could care less what most of the people I know want. And they definitley haven't learned from history.

I hope I'm wrong. I really hope I'm wrong...

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Small Business be Damned

So how do the following benefit small business: extending the statute of limitations on harassment and other workplace incidents and increasing taxes on business?

On the first, this opens up the possibility of individuals hitting hard times and doing something litigious that they otherwise wouldn't have pursued. So Mary Jo was harassed. I feel for her. The person that did the harassing should pay. But now, she loses her job. And she has no prospects. So lets sue the former business for money. If they were to blame, she would have sued initially. But now, after all that time has passed, the evidence shows she was harassed. That doesn't automatically make the business guilty but do they have the records to show their innocence's? It's less likely as time passes that they are going to maintain those records.

On the second, many have heard the stats - only 2-3% of businesses will be effected. That doesn't sound as promising when you consider that only 5% of businesses succeed. So, we are looking at 40-60% of businesses will be effected by these taxes. And, while so many people think that their boss or CEO can afford more in taxes, consider this. For every dollar the government takes, that is one less dollar they may spend on employees or business. So what will CEO's do? Common sense says that you avoid being penalized. So you avoid expanding your business. It has no benefit for the owner/CEO/president. It only benefits those that receive the increased tax.

So what if they reduced the taxes. I know, as a business owner, that would allow me to charge less, hire more and spend more. Isn;t that what our country needs?

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Here we go...

I am a huge Stillers fan. Have been all my life. On the waiting list for season tickets and everything. This game makes me nervous. I don't think I've ever seen a Stillers team this strong with such down to earth players. No prima donnas, no thugs (other than Santonio and he's just kidding - he'll never do it again, swear). Just down to earth fellas with great basics. And plenty of heart. But being a favorite is troublesome. And Whisenhunt is a heck of a coach. He's the only coach that I would not want to be facing in this game.

It would also be helpful if they had a player to hate. With so many Burgh connections, its difficult to maintain a hatrid. And Warner is a saint. I'm sure you've all recieved this email:

In a supermarket, Kurtis the stock boy, was busily working when a newvoice came over the loud speaker asking for a carry out at register 4.Kurtis was almost finished, and wanted to get some fresh air, anddecided to answer the call. As he approached the check-out stand adistant smile caught his eye, the new check-out girl was beautiful. Shewas an older woman (maybe 26, and he was only 22) and he fell in love.Later that day, after his shift was over, he waited by the punch clockto find out her name. She came into the break room, smiled softly athim, took her card and punched out, then left. He looked at her card,BRENDA. He walked out only to see her start walking up the road. Nextday, he waited outside as she left the supermarket, and offered her aride home. He looked harmless enough, and she accepted. When he droppedher off, he asked if maybe he could see her again, outside of work. Shesimply said it wasn't possible. He pressed and she explained she hadtwo children and she couldn't afford a baby-sitter, so he offered to payfor the baby-sitter. Reluctantly she accepted his offer for a date forthe following Saturday. That Saturday night he arrived at her door onlyto have her tell him that she was unable to go with him. The baby-sitterhad called and canceled. To which Kurtis simply said, "Well, let's takethe kids with us."She tried to explain that taking the children was not an option, butagain not taking no for an answer, he pressed. Finally Brenda, broughthim inside to meet her children. She had an older daughter who was justas cute as a bug, Kurtis thought, then Brenda brought out her son, in awheelchair. He was born a paraplegic with Down Syndrome. Kurtis askedBrenda, "I still don't understand why the kids can't come with us?"Brenda was amazed. Most men would run away from a woman with two kids,especially if one had disabilities - just like her first husband andfather of her children had done. Kurtis was not ordinary - - - he had adifferent mindset. That evening Kurtis and Brenda loaded upthe kids, went to dinner and themovies. When her son needed anything Kurtis would take care of him.When heneeded to use the restroom, he picked him up out of his wheelchair, tookhim and brought him back. The kids loved Kurtis. At the end of theevening, Brenda knew this was the man she was going to marry and spendthe rest of her life with. A year later, they were married and Kurtisadopted both of her children. Since then they have added two more kids.So what happened to Kurtis the stock boy and Brenda the check-out girl?Well, Mr. & Mrs. Kurt Warner now live in Arizona, where he is currentlyemployed as the quarterback of the NationalFootball League ArizonaCardinals and has his Cardinals in the hunt for a possible appearance inthe Big Game. Is this a surprise ending or could you have guessedthat he was not an ordinary person. It should be noted that he alsoquarterbacked the Rams. He has also been the NLF'sMost Valuable Player twice and the SB's Most Valuable Player.
I want to hate them but they haven't been good enough for long enough to have a rivalry and they have guys like this fricking guy. I wish they had someone that stabbed people or a recovering porn and glue addict that slipped into the occasional fist fight with the equipment guy. Then we could build up that necessary hatrid sports loyalty requires. Instead I'm left with a quite disdain for a team that reminds me of the last Pittsburgh Big Game Champ.
Go Stillers - beat them Cardinals - but not too badly... Crap!